Fluorescent Testicle: I can't tell whether you're doomsaying for cynicism's sake or just trolling, but nobody can honestly believe that Obama "Isn't accomplished" without having suffered from some sort of major brain damage.

Fluorescent Testicle:eraser8: I suppose that's part of the problem: I don't think Mr. Obama is a particularly accomplished president.

Look, I'll agree that his debate performance was abysmal (the rumours that he tanked on purpose as part of the long game seem fairly likely, but we'll see how it goes), but... Shut up. Seriously, just shut up. I can't tell whether you're doomsaying for cynicism's sake or just trolling, but nobody can honestly believe that Obama "Isn't accomplished" without having suffered from some sort of major brain damage. From reversing the recession, to kickstarting health care reform, to pointing us on the path to civil rights for gay people, to ending the Iraq War while taking out dozens of top terrorists - he's probably the most accomplished President within my lifetime. Is he perfect? Hell no. Does he deserve a second term regardless? Hell yes.

So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.

bullwrinkle:So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.

To get him to run to the center, say stupid things, and create a bunch of soundbites to use in attack ads. And that's exactly what the Obama campaign is doing

bullwrinkle:Fluorescent Testicle: eraser8: I suppose that's part of the problem: I don't think Mr. Obama is a particularly accomplished president.

Look, I'll agree that his debate performance was abysmal (the rumours that he tanked on purpose as part of the long game seem fairly likely, but we'll see how it goes), but... Shut up. Seriously, just shut up. I can't tell whether you're doomsaying for cynicism's sake or just trolling, but nobody can honestly believe that Obama "Isn't accomplished" without having suffered from some sort of major brain damage. From reversing the recession, to kickstarting health care reform, to pointing us on the path to civil rights for gay people, to ending the Iraq War while taking out dozens of top terrorists - he's probably the most accomplished President within my lifetime. Is he perfect? Hell no. Does he deserve a second term regardless? Hell yes.

So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.

What, pray tell, does the American media remember about the debates? "Obama did somewhat worse than expected" versus "Romney wants to kill Big Bird.".One of those is going to be more damaging to a campaign than the other, and will linger. The other will be forgotten by the next debate.

Remember, Obama plays the long game. Even if he screws up, he tends to find a way to use that. And you just know that, in some room somewhere, Romney, or some other high-profile Republican, is preparing to shove his foot into his mouth again, to remind America just how farked up the GOP is.

bullwrinkle:So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.

Hey, I didn't come up with the theory. :P I'm not completely sold on it, but as ICB and LordJiro have explained, it makes sense.

LordJiro:Remember, Obama plays the long game. Even if he screws up, he tends to find a way to use that. And you just know that, in some room somewhere, Romney, or some other high-profile Republican, is preparing to shove his foot into his mouth again, to remind America just how farked up the GOP is.

intelligent comment below:bullwrinkle: So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.

To get him to run to the center, say stupid things, and create a bunch of soundbites to use in attack ads. And that's exactly what the Obama campaign is doing

What was it around 67 million and more who wactched on the internet saw his performance whichI believe has a much greater impact. Romney didn't deliver a knock out punch and Obama could have a least been more engaged and he still would have his sound bites.

It's you I have a problem with if either you're sitting on the fence, or waffling on your own support of this administration.

Seriously?

Maher didn't say he was sitting on the fence. He just pointed out that the president performed MISERABLY in Wednesday's debate. And, that, simply, is the truth.

Mr. Obama, in my opinion, did worse than Mr. Bush in 2004. He did worse than Mr. Reagan in 1984. He did worse than Carter in 1980.

The ONLY thing the president had going for him to this point was an image of competence and an opponent who was batshiat insane. But, Mr. Obama DID NOT come across as competent in the debate. He came across as completely unprepared and out of his depth. Mr. Romney came across as nearly human. And, so what if Romney lied constantly? Being dishonest has NEVER been a handicap in American elections.

A lot of people have told me I've being too pessimistic...but, I honestly think that the president needs two STELLAR performances to undo the damage he did to himself this week. If he can't manage that, then I suspect he'll lose the election. And, as a "bonus," I suspect the Democrats will lose the Senate to boot.

You sound.. concerned.

I AM CONCERNED. Because I don't want that shiatbag Mitt Romney to win. It would be a disaster for the country. But, the president is farking things up for himself. Royally.

Seriously, dude? One debate has you crying gloom and doom?

...You and people like you (including Maher) are doing more to drive people to Romney (or to stay home) than Obama's performance in the debate did.

I do not get the people claiming Mitt Romney won anything. I'm listening to Rachel Maddow talking with Dan Rather the other night, discussing Romney's 'win', and I'm shaking my head, going 'who decided that?'

eraser8:whidbey: No, right now, you're working for the Republican party.

You're an idiot.

Fark off. Seriously.

You're the one working for the Republican party because you refuse to find fault with the president's performance when fault is OBVIOUS.

You ARE NOT HELPING Mr. Obama by acting like a blind person. If the president loses next month, you should pat yourself on the back, because you helped it happen.

...who's the "Obama supporter" saying that he farked up so badly in one debate that his opponent even has a chance to win at the polls, when all indicators previous to the debate have Obama so far ahead it would take a miracle to win?

You're acting like the debate was the Super Bowl, when it barely qualified as a preseason game.

Alphax:I do not get the people claiming Mitt Romney won anything. I'm listening to Rachel Maddow talking with Dan Rather the other night, discussing Romney's 'win', and I'm shaking my head, going 'who decided that?'

/back to reading the rest of the thread.

Probably the people who make more money on a horse race than a boat race.

LordJiro:bullwrinkle: Fluorescent Testicle: eraser8: I suppose that's part of the problem: I don't think Mr. Obama is a particularly accomplished president.

Look, I'll agree that his debate performance was abysmal (the rumours that he tanked on purpose as part of the long game seem fairly likely, but we'll see how it goes), but... Shut up. Seriously, just shut up. I can't tell whether you're doomsaying for cynicism's sake or just trolling, but nobody can honestly believe that Obama "Isn't accomplished" without having suffered from some sort of major brain damage. From reversing the recession, to kickstarting health care reform, to pointing us on the path to civil rights for gay people, to ending the Iraq War while taking out dozens of top terrorists - he's probably the most accomplished President within my lifetime. Is he perfect? Hell no. Does he deserve a second term regardless? Hell yes.

So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.

What, pray tell, does the American media remember about the debates? "Obama did somewhat worse than expected" versus "Romney wants to kill Big Bird.".One of those is going to be more damaging to a campaign than the other, and will linger. The other will be forgotten by the next debate.

Remember, Obama plays the long game. Even if he screws up, he tends to find a way to use that. And you just know that, in some room somewhere, Romney, or some other high-profile Republican, is preparing to shove his foot into his mouth again, to remind America just how farked up the GOP is.

Your premise about Obama's long game is reasonable but the Obama shrills are making so many excuses about his performance from the altitude to not coming across as an angry black man. I'm sureObama will do better at the town hall next week. I don't think Big Bird is a big deal and Romney can come up with something cleaver to counter the "controversy" but it sure will be asked by someone in the next debate. As far as remembering the debates Bush 41 looking at his watch and Nixon 5 o'clock shadow / sweating to name a few.

The Great EZE:Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is bombing the airwaves here in Ohio using Rmoney's debate performance. Hard Mode: No mention of Big Bird.

Rmoney, meanwhile, uh, maybe he's running his ads during Murder She Wrote in WeTV or something. I caught one anti-Obama PAC ad and that was it.

I sometimes wonder how the battleground state ads are doing around this time in the campaign. Being in Illinois I don't get that environment, which is a blessing, don't get me wrong.

Tried searching youtube but it's full of bad parodies and ads that I'm not sure are airing n TV at this time...

Here in Colorado, the evening news has maybe one or two advertisements during the entire hour that are not political. You can't even escape to the cable networks. And Romney is still running an ad that states unemployment is 8.1% and there hasn't been net job growth under Obama, both claims which are now false. This shows you just how short-sighted and unorganized Romney's campaign is. They should have known when they bought and scheduled these ads that the numbers could be different when they ran, and now they are blatantly false advertising.

Bottom line? Romney changing half of his positions as soon as the debate started was a sucker-punch and Obama having an off night meant his chin was turned just right for that punch to land square. What I want to know is, amongst all of this Romney-fellating, why have I not heard the term "flip-flop" once?

Obama was obviously, visibly tired (the backstory on that could be interesting) and his tactics and demeanor were too passive. Continually looking down to take notes indicated a baffling debate-prep error.

Romney came not to defend his previously-stated positions but to furiously shake his etch-a-sketch. He leaned heavily on an animated alpha-dog approach and extensive lying/flipfloppery, which could easily have backfired but seems to have gone over well with many viewers. He took more risks and they paid off, but it cost him in terms of handing ammunition to the Obama campaign for later use.

eraser8:If the remaining debates are a draw, I would bet on a Romney presidency. Seriously.

letmelaughevenharder.jpg

You've got to be kidding with this shiat. If the election were to take place today, Obama would win by almost 100 EVs. Romney winning every single swing state because of one debate performance? Please. You're forgetting that there are hardly any likely voters who are still undecided. Seriously. The swing states, except for maybe Ohio (because for some reason that state corners the market on these "undecided" morons) are already swung. The next two debates could go just like this one did, and Obama would still be a 2:1 favorite in the election, worst case.

You're being a Chicken Little. Obama wasn't good, but it wasn't the end of the world.

eraser8:I don't think Mr. Obama is a particularly accomplished president. As I've written over and over, the president has continually negotiated with himself and given the Republicans EVERYTHING they've wanted in terms of policy and, yet, failed to get a single one of their votes. The result has been ineffectual regulation of Wall Street, a national health care plan that keeps the US among the worst in the world and he's overseen a moribund economy because he refused to implement the kind of stimulus that would have been effective.

Is he better than Romney? Of course. But, don't fool yourself: he's been a center-right president.

Look, Obama hasn't turned out to be nearly liberal enough in his first term for me either, but he's still managed to do a lot of very good things for this country in the face of probably the most unified opposition the Republicans are capable of bringing to the fore. I have the feeling that he's going to shift much further to the left during his second term, especially if the Democrats win back a few Senate seats, which looks likely. I could of course be wrong, but AFAIC it's worth it to elect this guy again to find out, because I think he's really, honestly trying to help people. Thinking he was going to enact a single payer healthcare system or completely restructure the flow of money around and through Washington was a little naiive. You have to do things in small steps in this country, or people freak out. Obama unquestionably moved us in the right direction, and paved the way for more forward steps in the future.

There's also the larger goal of beating the GOP enough times in a row that they decide to finally abandon their current strategies and experiment with moving closer to the center again. Which, in turn, will leave room for the Dems to move further left, where they belong. The Boomers are starting to die off, and once a significant percentage of them are gone, it will change the political landscape. If the Dems can get one more two-term president into the White House after Obama, I think we might see a return to a more balanced divide between the parties.

Yeah, it's always bad form to blame the referees (or, in this case, the moderator) but asking "What's the difference between you two?" over and over and over and over again is probably a more egregious lack of effort than Obama's whiff. It's really easy for a pathological liar to perform his art when you give him a blank canvas to work with.

bullwrinkle:So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.

I don't think his plan was to tank on purpose, but you also have to look at what the candidates are trying to accomplish with the debates. Normally, the debates are a fight for undecided voters, but this election is not going to be affected much by those people, because there are hardly any left. Best case scenario for the debates on that front is that Romney takes Ohio. That's really all he has to gain from undecideds, and it's not even close to enough to win him the election at this point.

What IS important is for each side to turn out as much of their base as possible. If Romney fires up his base, and Obama doesn't, he has a shot. But if Obama gets his side going too, Romney has almost no chance to win. So through THAT lens, ask yourself what effect each of the two candidates' performances had.

Romney jumped so far to the center during his performance, it HAD to leave a bad taste in the mouths of the 'Baggers and reactionaries. Even if he picks up a couple of points nationally with undecideds, I think if he keeps up that kind of talk, he's going to see serious de-motivation in his base. The polls might not pick it up at first, but his turnout will suffer if he keeps up the "regulation is a good thing" talk.

Obama didn't look like "Step back, I GOT this" Obama. He looked more like, "WTF? I'm still the same guy, but this idiot is lying his head off. I could use a hand, voters." If he had gotten snarky, or flat-out called Romney a liar, he would have looked unpresidential. He couldn't prepare well-polished comebacks to Romney's policies, because Romney flipped on his entire platform harder than a pancake in a trapeze act. So he did the best he could do, which was to bide his time, say what he knew was safe, and let Romney run his mouth. I'll repeat what I've said before: If Obama had wiped the floor with Romney, it would have done him more harm than good with his own voting bloc. Mark my words- Obama will win this election by a margin that is inversely proportional to his expected performance. The closer it looks, the larger his margin of victory will be. The more it looks like he's going to mop up, the fewer young people will actually turn out.

This debate looked like a Romney win from up close, but I think it will turn out to benefit Obama more in the long run. Romney gave WAY too much ground on his policies (not that that word means much when applied to him) and paid exactly one sentence worth of lip-service to each of his far-right voting blocs.

The Numbers:Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Clearly you've not been paying much attention these past few days. Plenty of Dems desperately searching for alternate realities they can embrace to avoid the fact of Obama's debate defeat.

Actually, no. MSNBC pundits all called it for Romney that night, and haven't walked it back (they have of course attacked Romney for the outright bullish*t inherent in his debate performance). Obviously you've not been paying attention to anything resembling reality.

If it was Fox News and Obama slam dunked it, they would either outright lie and call it for Romney or attack Obama for some 14 year old video that he made.

The Numbers:Clearly you've not been paying much attention these past few days. Plenty of Dems desperately searching for alternate realities they can embrace to avoid the fact of Obama's debate defeat.

How do you think it sat with staunch conservatives to hear Romney admit that the only difference between his Healthcare plan and Obama's was that he had "bipartisan support" for his. Do you think that affected their opinion of him favorably? What about his other flip-flops? I'm not even talking about the hypocrisy or anything like that... I just mean, presentation and demeanor aside (because they were obviously the areas where he was the stronger of the two candidates) how do you think the actual words that came out of Romney's mouth were perceived by hard-core conservatives? What do you think that will do to voter turnout?

coeyagi:The Numbers: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Clearly you've not been paying much attention these past few days. Plenty of Dems desperately searching for alternate realities they can embrace to avoid the fact of Obama's debate defeat.

Actually, no. MSNBC pundits all called it for Romney that night, and haven't walked it back (they have of course attacked Romney for the outright bullish*t inherent in his debate performance). Obviously you've not been paying attention to anything resembling reality.

If it was Fox News and Obama slam dunked it, they would either outright lie and call it for Romney or attack Obama for some 14 year old video that he made.

Have you not read any of the threads about the debate? Not even this one?

I think the most likely answer and one I haven't heard expressed yet is that Michele wasn't happy about the debate being on their anniversary. They probably had a fight and it threw Obama off his game.

And considering how it started to turn around in the latter half it had to have been really close to debate time.

The Numbers:coeyagi: The Numbers: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Clearly you've not been paying much attention these past few days. Plenty of Dems desperately searching for alternate realities they can embrace to avoid the fact of Obama's debate defeat.

Actually, no. MSNBC pundits all called it for Romney that night, and haven't walked it back (they have of course attacked Romney for the outright bullish*t inherent in his debate performance). Obviously you've not been paying attention to anything resembling reality.

If it was Fox News and Obama slam dunked it, they would either outright lie and call it for Romney or attack Obama for some 14 year old video that he made.

Have you not read any of the threads about the debate? Not even this one?

Z-clipped:I just mean, presentation and demeanor aside (because they were obviously the areas where he was the stronger of the two candidates) how do you think the actual words that came out of Romney's mouth were perceived by hard-core conservatives? What do you think that will do to voter turnout?

Seriously? Feel free to name the last time Republican supporters were that concerned about the content of their candidates' policies they treated that as a higher priority than beating the Dem.

Republicans respond to a candidate who is bold and aggressive in pursuing their policies, even if those policies happen to point in the wrong direction for the country. It doesn't matter to Republicans how much Romney flip-flops, so long as he appears in control and doesn't admit to being wrong.

The Great EZE:Monkeyfark Ridiculous: The moderator was utterly worthless, failing to ask worthwhile questions, prompt useful exchanges, or enforce the agreed-upon rules.

Yeah, it's always bad form to blame the referees (or, in this case, the moderator) but asking "What's the difference between you two?" over and over and over and over again is probably a more egregious lack of effort than Obama's whiff. It's really easy for a pathological liar to perform his art when you give him a blank canvas to work with.

Romney could be declared the winner of the next two debates, but if you are familiar with the few policies and facts he's revealed outside of debates, why would someone switch their votes? I admit Romney did look better than Obama in the debate, but Romney's facts were weak.

The Numbers:Seriously? Feel free to name the last time Republican supporters were that concerned about the content of their candidates' policies they treated that as a higher priority than beating the Dem.

I'm not saying they will vote for Obama because of anything Romney says... he could eat a live baby on TV and they'd still identify as Republican. But with all of the Centrist shiat he's spewing now, I think more than a few of the bible-thumpers and hardcore 'baggers will stay home rather than vote for a guy who's talking like he's a Blue Dog. It's much harder to look at Romney and convince yourself that, despite his pandering to the middle, he really bleeds Southern Red than it was for someone with Dubya's demeanor.

I think Romney's going to lose on turnout if he hangs on to just about anything he said in this last debate.

jjorsett:Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Then I look forward to the outcry saying, "Why did you waste your political capital pushing thru a massively unpopular health care bill instead of working on the economy?"

NeoCon say what? Sorry that Fox News feeds you inaccurate information but I will take these facts from the fine scholars at MIT instead... "By September 2012, the Kaiser tracking polls even suggested that support exceeded opposition, with 45 percent viewing the law favorably and only 40 percent viewing it unfavorably.."

Girl From The North Country:jjorsett: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Then I look forward to the outcry saying, "Why did you waste your political capital pushing thru a massively unpopular health care bill instead of working on the economy?"

NeoCon say what? Sorry that Fox News feeds you inaccurate information but I will take these facts from the fine scholars at MIT instead... "By September 2012, the Kaiser tracking polls even suggested that support exceeded opposition, with 45 percent viewing the law favorably and only 40 percent viewing it unfavorably.."

Facts

It's always been close to 50/50, but in the eyes of Republicans, that's a "massive opposition".

skinink:Romney could be declared the winner of the next two debates, but if you are familiar with the few policies and facts he's revealed outside of debates, why would someone switch their votes? I admit Romney did look better than Obama in the debate, but Romney's facts were weak.

I watched as much of the debate as I could stand. If the current national tracking polls are an indication, and I have good understanding of their importance, Romney did not win the debate, Obama behaved weak. Obama lost voter confidence.

Nate Silver recently had Romney in the "Now Cast" at 2% and Obama at 98%. After the debate, Obama is in free fall. All the national polls except one still contain some predebate interviews meaning that they may underestimate Obama's damage.

Voters switched. The reason was Obama did not look like the man they would choose to stand up to other countries, and frankly, he did not look like the man they would choose to stand up to the worst nut jobs of the Republican party.

Mrtraveler01:Girl From The North Country: jjorsett: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Then I look forward to the outcry saying, "Why did you waste your political capital pushing thru a massively unpopular health care bill instead of working on the economy?"

NeoCon say what? Sorry that Fox News feeds you inaccurate information but I will take these facts from the fine scholars at MIT instead... "By September 2012, the Kaiser tracking polls even suggested that support exceeded opposition, with 45 percent viewing the law favorably and only 40 percent viewing it unfavorably.."

Facts

It's always been close to 50/50, but in the eyes of Republicans, that's a "massive opposition".

Girl From The North Country:Mrtraveler01: Girl From The North Country: jjorsett: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Then I look forward to the outcry saying, "Why did you waste your political capital pushing thru a massively unpopular health care bill instead of working on the economy?"

NeoCon say what? Sorry that Fox News feeds you inaccurate information but I will take these facts from the fine scholars at MIT instead... "By September 2012, the Kaiser tracking polls even suggested that support exceeded opposition, with 45 percent viewing the law favorably and only 40 percent viewing it unfavorably.."

Facts

It's always been close to 50/50, but in the eyes of Republicans, that's a "massive opposition".

Yes and the reason 40% still oppose is because Fox tells them so.

More or less. Plus:

Delay:The stupid part of that characterization by the Republicans is that 50% opposed number includes 20% of folks who don't like the law because it does not go far enough.

LordJiro:What, pray tell, does the American media remember about the debates? "Obama did somewhat worse than expected" versus "Romney wants to kill Big Bird.".One of those is going to be more damaging to a campaign than the other, and will linger. The other will be forgotten by the next debate.

I find it odd that so many people don't seem to think that Obama doing badly in the debate and Romney saying he'd kill Big Bird are both possible. I'm hesitant to really declare Romney the victor, but that doesn't mean that Obama did well. I think Romney did what he had to do at that moment: put a stop to the bleeding in his sinking campaign, so he threw out quite a bit of redmeat to his base at the risk of ignoring everyone else. I'm pretty sure it worked.

Sorry, but the Long Game strategy seems to be largely bullshiat to me. To me, it's an absolutely baseless explanation. The same excuse is applied to Obama's reluctance to take on the shriller components of congress, yet whatever strategy is behind this Long Game, I think Obama has little to show for it and mostly comes off as Obama not understanding/anticipating that absolutely batshiat-insanity of the GOP, of which Romney's deluge of bullshiat is very much a part of.

I don't think the debate will turn the outcome of the election (though a repeat in the next 2 possibly could), but the pure amount of spin put on this by fellow Obama supporters is much more disheartening than Obama's performance.

While I agree that random liberals on the interwebs are putting some ridiculous spins on Obama's performance, the Media types on the left (Maddow et al) have been pretty fair about calling it what it was.